Why I Couldn't Vote for Hillary Clinton

I took this blog down for a while, but I'm republishing it to own up to my decision not to vote for either candidate in the 2016 presidential election as a protest vote (I still voted in all the other contests). I still believe all my written points (and many others I didn't get to in this blog) were valid, and I still believe Clinton was a terrible candidate both on content and electability/likeability. And there were most likely shenanigans going on in the DNC with regards to anointing her as the chosen candidate over Bernie (we could chat for a long time about how the Democrat party shoots itself in the foot over and over and over again). But regardless, I should have sucked it up and voted for Hilary instead of a protest vote of "none of the above" (which is an option in my state - I would like to make it clear that I did NOT vote for Trump). Would my vote have made any difference in a state where the result of the election was not close in 2016 (with Clinton winning)? No. But, intent counts. And I should have voted for the lesser of evils. If for no other reason than for all the court appointments Trump got to make during his term, reshaping the American judicial for decades. So yeah, I'm sorry. I won't make the same mistake again.

After this horrific election, there's a lot of blame being thrown around by left-leaning voters and much of it is being slung at lefties and centrists who didn't vote for either major candidate.  Some of them seem to geniunely wonder why many self-proclaimed left-of-centrists (like me, for example) did not support Hillary.  Others might just be lashing out because they're justifiably pissed (lots of that on reddit, jezebel, etc.).  I think the latter's rage is misdirected.  I'd like to explain why, so here's a partial list of why I simply could not vote for Hillary.  I'm including some of Bill Clinton's enacted policies both because I firmly believe they were governing as a team during his presidency and because she has run a campaign implying as much by noting his accomplishments:

• Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill extended and expanded the Republican led war on drugs and crime and has been an unmitigated disaster, especially for minority populations.  This bill actually incentivized municipalities for increasing incarceration rates.  The effect should have been self-evident and has unfortunately played out with horrific consequences to the point where even many Republicans are eager for reform.  By going all out on drug enforcement and sentencing - mostly in minority communities - we have reached a point where roughly 1 in 3 black Americans born today face eventual incarceration.  No country in the western world imprisons people at nearly the rate (or racial disparity) of the United States.
• Clinton exploited her appointment as Secretary of State to shamelessly promote the business interests of large U.S. corporations, often to the detriment of foreign populations.  In possibly the most despicable example, Obama's State Department, led by Clinton, lobbied on behalf of major American clothing manufacturers to pressure the Haitian government to repeal or reduce their newly enacted minimum wage increase in 2009.  The increase was to approximately $5.00 U.S. per DAY.  The U.S. State Dept. convinced them to decrease it by half for textile workers, to only $2.50 U.S. per day.
• She voted for and supported the 2003 Iraq War.  
• After initially favoring a Palestinian state, Clinton has since pivoted hard right to favor keeping the status quo relationship between the U.S. and Israel, whereby the drastically smaller nation of Israel wags the U.S.'s tail and gets whatever it wants.  As a senator and Secretary of State, her public endorsements of Israeli actions deemed illegal by much of the international community have undone much of the effort her husband (and herself) exerted during the 90s to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians. 
• She has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines and voted with Republicans to defeat a measure banning the export of U.S. cluster munitions, widely considered an unacceptably horrific weapon of indiscriminate war by modern democratic nations (it has been estimated that up to 98% of cluster munition casualties are civilians - not surprising given the nature of a weapon that is designed to spread de facto land mines across large swaths of land). 2024 edit: I still mostly support this point, especially regarding cluster munitions. But we have recently started giving anti-personnel mines to Ukraine for their defense against the Russian invasion. As I have recently learned, modern American mines have electronic rather than mechanical triggers and are battery powered. Once the batteries die (after 2 weeks or so), the mines become completely inert by design. Thus, making them very low risk in the long run toward civilian populations. I need to do more research on this.
• She has become an unabashed war hawk.  In addition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, she has supported all other major U.S. military interventions since, including the "surge" expansion of our unending Afghanistan campaign which accomplished little other than extinguishing more lives (to be fair, it would be unrealistic for her to publicly condemn an Obama military policy as Secretary of State, but the pattern emerged much earlier during her time as a senator from New York).  She has said, seemingly unprovoked, that "If I'm President we will attack Iran."  "...we would be able to totally obliterate them."  
• As we all know, she made the disastrous mistake of using a private email server for her official electronic correspondence as Secretary of State.  Yes, I can hear the groans from liberal friends saying, "you can't be serious about the email thing?"  But regardless of whether it was illegal, it was definitely stupid and careless and most likely done with some nefarious intent.  There is no good reason why anyone would go to the effort of setting up a separate email server for work when one is already provided, especially seeing how federal employees including at the state department were specifically told to use the government email systems for work.  At best, this episode points to a lack of competence and a streak of arrogant disregard for the rules.  At worst, it points to a cover-up of backdoor deals to benefit the Clinton Foundation and/or her family's speaking engagements.
• The Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates - not exactly champions for human rights.   
• She has raked in millions of dollars a year in speaking fees, paid for by more large businesses than you can shake a stick at, from myriad industries.  Most of these speaking fees were in excess of $200,000.  While this is not unusual for former presidents or even current politicians, receiving such massive payouts from so many large corporate interests raises a red flag for a Secretary of State running (or shortly planning to run) for President.  Do we really think all of these corporations were paying her over $200k for just one speech, with no expectation of political consideration? 

As I said, this is an incomplete list.  She's a neocon.  The more you dig, the larger the pile of dirt you have.  OK, that was a very stupid analogy.  I'm not a good writer and it was a long day at work - cut me a little slack.  If you're interested in reading a bit more, here's a good article from Jacobin:  "Hillary Clinton's Empowerment"

Let me be clear:  I have zero issues with anyone who voted for Clinton as their preferred choice (I almost did).  I only hope others can understand why I simply couldn't.  While others see her as the lessor of two evils, I say this:

1)  I believe that while one of these candidates (Clinton and Trump) will obviously be "worse" than the other, determining which beforehand would be is impossible.  Trump used to be a Democrat, has no political record, says outrageous contradictory things, and seemingly changes his mind every 5 minutes.  Clinton, on the other hand, is much more methodical and calculating.  Slowly bending her positions to suit the current mood (most notably during the nation's War Fever of the early '00s).  All the while, drafting a careful campaign of revisionist statements to hide past inconsistencies.  I have maintained that while Trump has said lots of truly horrific things (and actually screwed real people over, but in the business world), Clinton has actively participated in decisions that result in truly horrific deadly things actually happening to real people.

2)  I believe that while both candidates have the unknowable potential to be all-around awful (per my first point), each would be obviously better or worse than the other on differing issues.  Which issues and candidate positions you find more palatable obviously differs from person to person.  Despite my general disdain of the current Republican party, I have to admit there are a few vague points Trump has made that I agree with.  Cases in point, he has pledged to open up medical insurance competition between states (I wholeheartedly agree with this) and he has alluded to some style of pharmaceutical price control (a position that I am quickly coming around to given the insane - and mostly unique to the U.S.-  price gouging that is draining our wallets).  Also, it should be noted that while I do consider myself "left of center" (even left of Democrats on some issues) I still align with conservative thinking on an issue or two (I'm not saying which).

OK, let's say someone actually read all the tripe I just wrote and still thinks I'm an arrogant, self-righteous idiot (I won't say they're wrong). They still may think I (and people like me) gave the election to Trump. Well, the math probably doesn't support that assertion. The vote counts weren't that close in most states. While reading an incredibly vulgar, bullying and tantrum-like piece on Jezebel's "The Slot" political section in which the author (I use the term loosely) lashed out at Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, 3rd party voters and abstainers ("Fuck you" are her repeated words to everyone who doesn't vote the same way she does), I noticed in the comments section (which is often more insightful than the kinja articles itself) someone stating that even if you "Take Jill Stein out of the equation, Hillary takes Michigan and Wisconsin but still loses." Have I fact checked that yet? No, and I probably won't, because my brain hurts and it's all academic now. But it jives with my observations on the election. Look, it's a damn shame because Clinton did win the popular vote, but the electoral college wasn't really a contest. She was getting beat everywhere and it wasn't close enough in the swing states that losing the 3rd party choices would have mattered (it certainly didn't matter in Nevada). Besides, even if you take away the 3rd party choices that's no guarantee all the remainder would vote Clinton (they wouldn't), because they weren't a uniform mass of liberal group-think.

If we're mad about this loss, let's direct our rage where it belongs. First, at the DNC. They decided early that Hillary was their woman (again) and shoved all of their money into her campaign, even actively plotting against Bernie. Forgetting Bernie for a second, if Hillary hadn't run and been coronated by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz et al before the primary even began we might have seen some actual young, diverse, thoughtful, likeable rising stars campaign for the nomination. But in the face of the Hillary/DNC juggernaut they decided to wait it out a few election cycles until they're invited to the adult table. Another thing to consider: if Hillary hadn't run, Joe Biden probably would have rolled the dice and won the nomination. And he could have won the general election. Hell, the Dems could have run a fucking chimp against Trump and won. But they designated one of the most unliked, hawkish, neocon career politicians from a fading generation for the nomination. The same strategy of holding off young rising stars in favor of returning has-beens cost them several congressional seats. If we're pissed, let's demand a house-cleaning of the DNC's leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that neither party holds onto the presidency for three consecutive terms in modern history with the one exception of George H.W. Bush after Reagan. Like it or not, we were due for a political correction much like how the stock market occasionally drops hard for no good reason other than to kill some inertia.

And finally, if we let another four years pass without at least trying to make some grassroots effort to rid ourselves of the patently unfair Electoral College, then shame on all of us.  2 of the last 5 elections have seen a president elected who lost the popular vote.  Even if you're a Republican, this should make you angry.  Sign the petition and write your state and federal representatives.  Let them know we can erase the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.